Air Conception Nitro 200cc

[custom-vince]

SW, youtube embedding option is pre-set because of gopro quick, far as i know.

 

Neilzy, thats the Ozone Freeride 19m. I added the tip steering elastics myself. testing the idea out, to much slack, so may remove of shorten yet or just lower the brake toggles. I don't like that much string flapping awards my prop.

Edited July 27, 2017 by custom-vince

[custom-vince]

Thanks SW, I found a tick box not greyed out.

 

 

[custom-vince]

I get asked about how compact the AC nitro can be. 

This pic is that standard fold down. Supplied cage bag and weight shift arms attached

 

this is with quick release arms and put in a bag. Choice of Sol padded bag or cheap ebay hold-all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hemberg]

I am pretty set on getting one of these. Doubt I will change my mind, it has everything I want except generator but I can live with that. I'll test the standard size next spring but what I'm considering the XL because of lower noise level at level flight. Unfortunately I won't be able to test that one. What I'm a bit worried about is hitting the cage with my legs while running in zero wind start. I'm 176 cm. I've gotten some response on the facebook forums but everyone are taller than me and all that responded use the delta frame. From the looks of it the delta and titanium frame seems to differ some. I think it'll work out, but I'm not sure.
Do you have any experience with the Titanium XL Vince? 

[AndyB]

I see the LiPo is not in a fire proof bag

 

[custom-vince]

4 minutes ago, AndyB said:

I see the LiPo is not in a fire proof bag

 

Yes that was my standby battery just while I was testing. The bagged one was on charge.

[custom-vince]

I have some experience with XL. I have just a couple out there being flown. The larger diameter appears to have a bit more flex with the leverage. The standard titanium Race is stiffer for sure. 

All the XL’s are owned by taller pilots. 

[AndyB]

lol. Just being observant!

 

[custom-vince]

Very observant. I don’t think it was about to explode though. I felt pretty safe ?

[AndyB]

My experience of LiPo's is that they do not go on fire when in use. I have run them on very high power applications until the voltage quits and the motor dies. The worst I have ever managed is to get a LiPo to swell up. This is quite common if they run on very high power for extended time, because they are not designed to get the heat out. It is the heat that causes the swelling. The batteries still work perfectly well, but start to look bad. 

I have tried getting a swollen battery to burst into flames, or do something dramatic, by shorting one out. Nothing happened! 

In nearly 20 years of using LiPo's I have had 2 fires.

One was while charging a 3 cell pack. In the early days of these batteries advice was that they only needed balance charging every 3rd or 4th recharge. However, if charging a 3 cell pack and one cell goes faulty and that cell will only accept say 2.5 volts, then other 2 cells get driven over voltage. I nearly burnt my house down with that one.  Always use balance charger and this cannot happen. Also, always use fireproof bag.

My other firs was when I ripped the wings off an RC plane, leaving the fuselage to hit the ground at over 100 mph. There was a loud bang and a giant fireball, just like in a movie. Two minutes later, another fireball. The plane used two separate 3 cell batteries, so guessing the first one ruptured on impact, then the other one got burnt!

 

[custom-vince]

Heres a good pic. A full aircraft in a  boot.

Air Conception Nitro in the SOL padded bag (lost at the back of the boot), the frame and prop in the AC padded bag, Ozone spyder in the concertina bag and still room for more. Audi S6 saloon.

Air Conception Nitro in a SOL bag plus ozone Spyder all in the back of Audi S6 V8 by Surfer Vince, on Flickr

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by custom-vince

[wzh]

air conception Nitro 200  Engine:

200cc. 2 Stroke. 40:1 synthetic oil.

28hp @ 8100 rpm. 

1:2.7 belt drive. 

Nylock long life pull start.

11.3kg engine with steel exhaust.

Double compression joint exhaust.

Exhaust has built in dB reduction.

Carbon fiber silencer.

Advanced internal & external engine cooling.

Anti slip triple belt life technology.

All bolts thread locked and position marked.

Tuned for linear throttle response.

[wzh]

Nitro 200  Engine ，Thrust test results:

72kg thrust with 125cm propeller, standard fit.

74kg thrust with 130cm propeller

80kg thrust in XL version.

[wzh]

Fuel consumption test results:

4000 rpm = 2,25 l/h

5000 rpm = 2,66 l/h

5500 rpm = 3,27 l/h

6000 rpm = 4,80 l/h

7000 rpm = 6,74 l/h

7900 rpm = 8,57 l/h

[custom-vince]

Ive had a few flights on the Nitro XL on a couple of different wings. Trims a little way out on my 23m I was getting 4600 rpm level flight and that fight I burned 3 lph based on my tank markings.

Nitro XL is 165cm hoop and 150cm prop. The aim is increased thrust and economy while reducing noise.

I have forward launched the bigger hoop a few times,  I could feel the lines slide around a larger circumference but forward launching went as normal. I did feel the cage tap the back of my leg once running as it is a little longer frame behind the legs, it was a rough field and the first launch. Since then I have flown my 19m a few times and adjusted my technique. Not felt the cage since. The smaller lighter wing slips around the cage no problems and I dont really notice a difference vs a normal size frame. I am 6'2" and would suggest the XL to pilot 6foot and over for ease. Pilots of 5'7" have flown them so its not a big deal.

Feelings: it feels smoother and quieter. It made me realise how much I feel and hear a prop more than an engine, oddly at 4500-4600 rpm level flight it feels like half that rpm of a normal size cage at the same rpm if that makes any sense.. Level flight feels like it is tickling along using barely any power. My normal frame at 4600rpm feels like 4600rpm, the XL at 4600rpm feels like 2500rpm because the prop reduction ratio giving a slower turning larger prop.

power on the ground didn't feel that big a difference over the standard size, in the air though, i have picture that looks and feel like a 45 degree climb out. I feel on the edge of climb angle limits and respectfully do not hold full power to climb, which adds to economy. It has a lot more power in the air. I am beginning to feel the ground thrust tests could become obsolete as these high efficiency props do not seem to show their true potential until moving through the air.

A short video from Easter Sunday, nothing much to show,  just for entertainment. Jazzy editing by gopro quick.

 

[AndyB]

Vince, thrust is different in the air because of the 20 mph+ airflow. The slower, larger prop is more efficient!

[Guest chrisg547]

Can you do a vid without the music Vince? So we can hear the engine.
Its hard to find any XL vids. Are there many XL machines out there in the wild?

Edited April 19, 2018 by chrisg547

[Guest chrisg547]

Is there any particular reason the XL doesn't come with a clutch Vince? (from what i can see on your website that is)

 

Edit: Was just thinking that maybe it would give that much of a window if the RPM's are already low. if the clutch didn't kick in until around 3000rpm.

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by chrisg547

[custom-vince]

Good question. It’s down to the different reduction ratio used. A small version of the clutched pulley has not been produced.

[The80s]

On 4/18/2018 at 00:54, custom-vince said:

I could feel the lines slide around a larger circumference but forward launching went as normal.

 

Is this bad for the lines in the long run? Will it wear them out faster and cause them to tear at some point, from the rubbing?

 

On 12/25/2017 at 18:39, wzh said:

Fuel consumption test results:

4000 rpm = 2,25 l/h

5000 rpm = 2,66 l/h

5500 rpm = 3,27 l/h

6000 rpm = 4,80 l/h

7000 rpm = 6,74 l/h

7900 rpm = 8,57 l/h

Do we know what the fuel consumption results are for the XL? 

(And by 2,25 do you mean 2.25? I'm not quite understanding the comma)

[AndyB]

1 hour ago, The80s said:

(And by 2,25 do you mean 2.25? I'm not quite understanding the comma)

In some countries a comma is used where we would use a point.

[custom-vince]

3 hours ago, The80s said:

Is this bad for the lines in the long run? Will it wear them out faster and cause them to tear at some point, from the rubbing?

 

Do we know what the fuel consumption results are for the XL? 

(And by 2,25 do you mean 2.25? I'm not quite understanding the comma)

line wear, not at all, its barely noticeable on launch, just an observation. The slippery titanium hoop helps with a single clean join. Compare that to velcro attached netting with a fabric outer sleeve or frames where the joins are alloy piece with a  tube either side making it double join and then twice per side. No i dont see any issues there.

Flying in a typical sight seeing fashion, mostly cruising about at 1000ft I roughly burn 3 litres per hour. I am 85kg with 19m ozone freeride. Fuel economy is very wing and weight dependent. As you can see from the chart above, as the rpm increase so does the fuel burn. Level flight was about 4600rpm with the trims out a little, it was just normal flying.

I haven't tried full slow, I could probably improve on that figure if I was to do a super eco run. Launch and climb out with gentle throttle, keep the wing on a trim the gives lowest rpm level flying, maintain a static height for the whole flight, I think I could see 2.5 lph. Theres no real point to that except chasing low numbers. Real world figures for pilots similar weight to myself 3 to 3.5 to 4 lph, larger pilot with larger wing etc.

[The80s]

On 4/26/2018 at 00:06, custom-vince said:

line wear, not at all, its barely noticeable on launch, just an observation. The slippery titanium hoop helps with a single clean join. Compare that to velcro attached netting with a fabric outer sleeve or frames where the joins are alloy piece with a  tube either side making it double join and then twice per side. No i dont see any issues there.

Flying in a typical sight seeing fashion, mostly cruising about at 1000ft I roughly burn 3 litres per hour. I am 85kg with 19m ozone freeride. Fuel economy is very wing and weight dependent. As you can see from the chart above, as the rpm increase so does the fuel burn. Level flight was about 4600rpm with the trims out a little, it was just normal flying.

I haven't tried full slow, I could probably improve on that figure if I was to do a super eco run. Launch and climb out with gentle throttle, keep the wing on a trim the gives lowest rpm level flying, maintain a static height for the whole flight, I think I could see 2.5 lph. Theres no real point to that except chasing low numbers. Real world figures for pilots similar weight to myself 3 to 3.5 to 4 lph, larger pilot with larger wing etc.

I wonder if the Delta hoop is any rougher on the lines than the titanium? Is it as slippery?

I'm roughly 106kg and would probably need a 26-28m wing (Spyder or Roadster 2). Do you have any idea what I might burn under the same conditions you listed (XL)?

On 4/25/2018 at 22:30, AndyB said:

In some countries a comma is used where we would use a point.

I see. Thank you.

Edited April 27, 2018 by The80s

[Guest chrisg547]

Is the XL your go to machine Vince. Or do you primarily use the the standard size one?

[christian]

I bought a 2nd hand Technofly Octagon (same as the Nitro) and have been pleasantly surprised at the fuel economy.  For the last seven years I have flown a Miniplane Top 80, the fuel burn doesn't seem to be an higher on the Octagon.  It came with a 3 bladed Peszke prop, which might help.  Last weekend I went up with my Octagon with a mate on his Top80 and we both burned the same amount of fuel.